Building confident teachers: Preservice physical education ...

Journal of Case Studies in Education Volume 6 – September, 2014

Building confident teachers: Preservice physical education teachers’
efficacy beliefs

Karen E. Hand
Northeastern Illinois University

ABSTRACT

Understanding teachers’ perceptions of their abilities across a variety of teaching
strategies can provide insight for understanding teaching effectiveness and program review.
Teaching efficacy reflects the degrees of confidence individuals have in their ability to
successfully perform specific teaching proficiencies (Bandura, 1986). Additional insight can also
be gleaned by examining the factors that influence a person’s rating of his/her efficacy beliefs
across a variety of pedagogical skills and core competencies. Objectives: This investigation
examined the strength (1-5 likert-scale) and source of teaching efficacy across six national
standards for physical education. Methods: Self-efficacy measures served to examine efficacy
beliefs across the following NASPE (2008) competency areas of (Scientific knowledge, skill and
fitness based competence, planning and implementation, instructional delivery and management,
impact on student learning, and professionalism). Additionally, sources of influence on the
teachers’ efficacy ratings were also examined. Participants: Participants consisted of 120 pre-
service physical educators who were enrolled in an accredited physical education teacher
preparation program at a suburban research-intensive university. Participants were participating
in either a clinical experience or student teaching. Results: Student teachers reported the highest
level of overall teaching efficacy with their highest ratings being for professional dispositions
and content knowledge. The student teachers lowest scores were ability to enhance student
engagement and utilize assessment to foster student learning. Clinical students had a lower
overall teaching efficacy rating with the lowest rating being for planning and implementation
followed by assessment. Recommendations for potential program improvement and meeting
accreditation standards can be drawn from the results.

Keywords: teaching efficacy, pre-service physical education, teacher preparation, standards
based competencies

Copyright statement - Authors retain the copyright to the manuscripts published in AABRI
journals. Please see the AABRI Copyright Policy at http://www.aabri.com/copyright.html.

Building confident teachers, page 1

Journal of Case Studies in Education Volume 6 – September, 2014

INTRODUCTION

Investigations of beginning teachers’ efficacy judgments have helped to predict teacher
retention, teacher performance and effectiveness, as well as, early career teacher development.
Self-efficacy judgments reflect individual’s belief about competencies that require meeting
specific performance outcomes (Bandura, 1991). Teaching efficacy judgments start to form early
in pre-service teachers’ programs as they attempt to learn new content, new skill competencies
required by accreditation, and new expectations for certification. Although teaching efficacy has
been linked to important aspects of teaching effectiveness, little work has been done to
understand the initial phase of efficacy development that begins while completing one’s teacher
preparation program.

Teachers’ efficacy beliefs are thought to affect both their general orientation toward the
educational process as well as their ability to meet specific instructional activities (Bandura,
1986, 1991). Bandura (1986, 1991) contended that there are several consequences of the
development, or lack of development, of high efficacy judgments in relation to one’s teaching.
Teachers with low efficacy are more likely to give up in the face of difficulties, experience more
anxiety during their pre-service experiences, are less effective in using problem solving
strategies, and have lower teaching aspirations (Bandura, 1991). In contrast, high efficacy is
believed to predict more commitment to teaching, and setting of more challenging goals
(Woolfolk-Hoy & Burke-Spero, 2005). Further, teachers with a strong sense of efficacy engage
in detailed planning, demonstrate greater enthusiasm for teaching, and spend more time teaching
in higher efficacy competency tasks (Riggs & Enochs, 1990).

In addition to understanding the strength of teachers’ efficacy judgments, Bandura (1986,
1991) also underscored the importance of measuring the sources that influence the individual’s
efficacy judgments. Bandura’s work consistently identified several sources that are proven to
consistently influence efficacy judgments. For this study, the researchers investigated three of
those sources: 1) mastery experiences; 2) verbal encouragement/discouragement; and 3)
modeling. Specifically, mastery experiences in teaching can take the form of teacher knowledge
that includes pedagogical and instructional knowledge as well as successful teaching
experiences. This knowledge forms the basis of planning, implementation and instructional
strategies utilized by the novice teacher (Griffey & Housner, (1991). Framed within a pre-service
teacher’s program, low teaching efficacy would be predicted to result from a lack of mastery
teaching experiences during this time whereas higher teaching efficacy would result from
mastery experiences throughout both their program and pre-service teaching opportunities. Low
efficacy may very well begin in the pre-service experiences in which the young educator does
not have sufficient opportunity for mastery experiences across the various required competency
areas (Martin & Hodges-Kulinna, 2003; Woolfolk-Hoy & Burke-Spero, 2005). Contrary, well-
designed standards based curriculum with significant opportunities for mastery teaching
experiences should positively influence one’s perceptions of teaching efficacy. It is plausible that
positive pre-service mastery experiences would reinforce one’s perceptions of ability in her/his
early teaching career.

The second source of efficacy, modeling or observational learning, is also believed to
affect one’s perceptions of teaching efficacy during pre-service experience. More specifically,
the quality and type of model available is also an important aspect of how influential modeling
and observational learning can be for a pre-service teacher (Onafowora, 2005). A variety of
observational models such as the cooperating teacher, peers, or mastery models, can provide both

Building confident teachers, page 2

Journal of Case Studies in Education Volume 6 – September, 2014

positive, negative, or little influence on the pre-service teacher’s own teaching efficacy
judgments. In order to act as a source of influence the pre-service teacher must have access to an
observational learning model (Darling-Hammond, Berry, Haselkorn, & Fideler, 1999; Feiman-
Nemser, 2001).

The third source of efficacy is feedback from significant socializing agents, such as the
cooperating teacher or academic professor. Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk-Hoy, and Hoy (1998)
suggested that teachers’ efficacy is determined in part, by assessing the feedback from important
others such as cooperating teachers and professors. In light of the fact that pre-service physical
education teaching opportunities can be limited and occur in isolated settings (in terms of both
physical location and content compared to other content areas) with few, if any, pre-service peers
teaching in the same location, there may be a lack of access to various forms of verbal
encouragement from significant others regarding specific competencies. Importantly feedback
can also take the form of negative feedback and discouragement acting as a de-motivator for the
novice teacher.

In order to develop pre-service teacher efficacy students need to have opportunities to
progress in the various standards based competencies. In physical education (PE), the
competencies required by the national governing body of NASPE (2008) are as follows: 1)
Scientific and theoretical knowledge; 2) Fitness and skill based competence; 3) Planning and
implementation; 4) Instructional delivery and management; 5) Impact on student learning; and 6)
Professionalism. Physical education teacher preparation programs have been actively involved in
preparing for national accreditation visits, meeting standards based competencies, developing
curricular revisions, revising instructional strategies, and preparing their students for numerous
proficiency based tests. To this end, educational researchers have found the importance of
understanding the unique and similar sources that may influence the development of self-efficacy
among pre-service physical education teachers (PSTs) as they navigate through their program
and engage in their field based teaching experiences.

Teaching efficacy among physical educators has been shown to be weaker compared to other
content areas, due in part, to excessive role demands, low status of the subject matter, lack of
recognition in a core curriculum, professional isolation, and alienation within a school facility
(Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998). Contrary some researchers have found that teacher self-efficacy
tends to increase during one’s teacher education programs (Woolfolk, Rosoff & Hoy, 1990; Wenner,
2001) but decrease after graduation, continuing to decline to the end of the first year of teaching
(Moseley, Reinke & Bookour, 2003; Woolfolk Hoy, 2000). Although to date there is some
understanding of the strength of teaching efficacy beliefs among early career educators, very little is
known about the efficacy needed to meet the current and growing standards based competency
demands required in a physical education accreditation process. Additionally little if any data exists
about the sources, which influence teaching efficacy ratings. Providing this next level of data will
help to develop strategies guidelines and enhanced assessment techniques to develop teacher
effectiveness across a program of study.

Thus, the purpose of this study was to investigate the strength of self-efficacy judgments
and the sources of influence on the self-efficacy ratings among physical education pre-service
enrolled in a university accredited teacher preparation program.

Building confident teachers, page 3

Journal of Case Studies in Education Volume 6 – September, 2014

PARTICIPANTS and PROCEDURES

The participants (N=149) included all students enrolled in clinical (n=70) and student
teaching (79) field experiences across three academic semesters at a Division I research intensive
university. Both male (n=91) and female (n=58) pre-service (k-12) physical education teachers
enrolled in an accredited program within a suburban setting located in a Midwestern state. The
participants all signed informed consent forms as their consent to participate in completing two
pencil and paper questionnaires that measured both the level of teaching efficacy as well as their
sources of influence on their efficacy ratings of teaching proficiencies.

For this study a physical education teaching efficacy scale was developed to measure the
pre-service teachers perceptions of abilities to meet the physical education teaching
competencies set out by the standards as outlined by NASPE (2008). Specifically, Standard 1
measured the PST’s knowledge and ability to apply discipline-specific scientific and theoretical
concepts critical to the development of physically educated individuals. Standard 2 - PST’s
ability to be a physically educated individual with the knowledge and skills necessary to
demonstrate competent movement performance and health enhancing fitness. Standard 3
measured the PST’s perceptions of efficacy in terms of their ability to plan and implement
developmentally appropriate learning experiences aligned with local, state, and national
standards to address the diverse needs of all students. Standard 4 questions measured the PST’s
efficacy to use effective communication and pedagogical skills and strategies to enhance student
engagement and learning. Standard 5 measured the PST’s ability to utilize assessments and
reflection to foster student learning and inform instructional decisions. Finally, Standard 6
measured the PST’s efficacy in their ability to demonstrate dispositions essential to becoming
effective professionals (NASPE Standards 2008). The NASPE Standards address expectations
related to prospective teachers' knowledge base, broad areas of teaching (such as planning,
management and motivation, communication, and student assessment), and professionalism.
Standards are further linked to outcomes/elements illustrating more specific expectations.

The efficacy items were written using a likert-scale response items anchored by (1) "Not
at all confident," to (5) "Completely confident," with a midpoint of (3) "Somewhat confident”
reflecting consistency with the measurement recommendations of Bandura (1997). The second
instrument measured the sources that the students believed to influence efficacy ratings. For each
of the six standards, the respondents were asked to provide, “the factors which most influenced
your rating of confidence in the previous group of questions.” The sources data were quantified
as to the most frequently reported source while the level of efficacy was calculated using
descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Descriptive statistics revealed differences for teaching efficacy means across field
experience as well as proficiency standard. Mean efficacy scores were calculated for each of the
standards across two settings; 1) clinical and 2) student teaching. Significant differences across
teaching experience were revealed. More specifically, the clinical students reported lower mean
overall efficacy (m=3.1) than student teachers (m=4.3). Following the calculation of the overall
mean efficacy ratings across all standards, efficacy ratings were calculated for each standard in
order to find the range of scores. For student teachers the highest mean efficacy score was for
professional dispositions and content knowledge (m=4.5), while the lowest rating was in their

Building confident teachers, page 4

Journal of Case Studies in Education Volume 6 – September, 2014

perceived ability to enhance student engagement and utilize assessment (m=3.6) to foster student
learning. Clinical students had the lowest rating for planning and implementation (2.9) followed
by assessment (2.7) indicating judgments that were just below feeling “moderately confident”.

The most common sources of self-efficacy reflect the experiences that participants
identified as most strongly influencing their efficacy ratings for each of the standards and the
corresponding elements. Sources were analyzed by themes under, “enhancing efficacy” or
“decreasing efficacy.” The three most common themes that students reported as enhancing their
teaching efficacy were:

 Teaching Practice,
 Opportunities to Implement Feedback,
 Observing Master Teachers
The Teaching Practice theme reflected teaching experiences across the curriculum in
which the participants felt they had opportunities to practice their teaching skills. Specifically,
they shared that having an adapted physical education clinic provided them the opportunities to
practice their planning and implementation skills across diverse student needs. Having what they
perceived as “lessons that went well” reflects what Bandura (1986) termed mastery experiences.
Other participants shared that their confidence was enhanced because of their teaching
environment. For example, “our clinical structure lets us take over the entire class and not feel
like we are trying to fit into what the cooperating teacher is doing. I gained confidence each day I
taught and since we were their everyday it got better and better.”
Under the enhanced efficacy sources, the Opportunities to Implement Feedback reflected
the value teacher candidates placed on having a good cooperating teacher who provided specific
and immediate feedback that would enhance their teaching and their students’ learning
experiences. Teacher candidates appreciated this feedback immediately following their lessons.
For example, one teacher candidate stated, “Great ideas from coop to make immediate changes
to lessons and made next lesson better.” The more concrete the feedback, the better for
candidates’ efficacy.
For the enhanced efficacy sources of Observing Master Teachers, the teacher candidates
had the opportunity to observe master teachers in both physical education and other content
areas. In some of their experiences, teacher candidates were fortunate to have a master teacher as
their cooperating teacher. For others they were given the opportunity to go to other content areas
(i.e. math or science) and observe master teachers in a classroom setting. The most helpful
experiences were with master teachers in physical education as teacher candidates expressed
challenges with the transfer of information from a classroom setting to a gym or playing field
setting. For example, one teacher candidate stated, “master teacher was helpful but would have
liked to see a master teacher in PE.” Most participants felt that observing a master teacher was a
positive to see how teachers manage their lessons and student behavior.
Several themes were identified as sources that lowered the pre-service teachers’ feelings
of efficacy to meet the standard based competencies. The three most common themes for
decreasing efficacy were:
 Lack of Teaching Practice,
 Lack of Access to Current Technology in Schools,
 Lack of Effective Role Model in Cooperating Teacher
One of the lowest efficacy scores occurred within the standards of Planning and
Implementation. When asked what factors influenced their efficacy ratings the most common
responses surrounded a Lack of Teaching Practice. More specifically, the clinical students

Building confident teachers, page 5

Journal of Case Studies in Education Volume 6 – September, 2014

reported feeling unprepared for the full time teaching in the clinical setting because up to that
point, “we had only taught our peers in our classes and that's not real teaching.” In addition, they
reported struggling with the Lack of Access to Current Technology. To this point, students were
disappointed with the lack of equipment and technology aids available to conduct the lessons that
they had planned for students. Students reported having practiced at the University with
Technology and then did not have access to it during both clinical and student teaching
experiences. One student wrote, “I had a great lesson with heart rate monitors planned and ready
to go and my school didn’t have any heart rate monitors.” Another, student shared, all the
equipment with technology was broken and no one seemed to care that it could help the kids
better understand their fitness scores.”

The third theme to emerge among the lowest efficacy scores was the Lack of Effective
Role Model in a Cooperating Teacher. Pre-service teachers reported they did not learn anything
from their cooperating teacher and felt they were lacking as effective role model for good
teaching. Other specific responses had to do with the cooperating teacher being absent during
any of the class periods as well as lacking a positive understanding of best practices. Some of the
pre-service teachers’ responses were as follows, “My coop was never around.” “Coop didn’t
understand my questions about teaching.” “Didn’t give me any feedback I could use…like they
didn’t know either.” The pre-service teachers shared comments of disappointment or
disillusionment over not having a cooperating teacher that they believed modeled good teaching
practices and at times even felt like they were teaching the cooperating teacher about how to
teach more effectively. This experience lowered their overall teaching efficacy and belief that
they would be successful in their first teaching positions.

CONCLUSION

The examination of the teaching efficacy among pre-service physical education teachers
in this study focused on their competency beliefs to meet the teaching proficiencies set out by the
national accreditation body for physical education programs. The theoretical framework of self-
efficacy provided insight into the perceptions of pre-service teachers’ beliefs in their own
abilities to effectively meet the standards based competencies. Researchers have investigated
general education teachers regarding the issues novice teachers face in connection with their
level of self-confidence during their beginning teaching years following graduation (Darling-
Hammond et.al, 1999; Feiman-Nemser, 2001,).

Woolfolk Hoy and Burke-Spero (2003) contended that pre-service teachers bring with them
their previous set of experiences from high school that often offer an unstable set of individual and
contextual influences to explain their efficacy judgments. To this point, the impact of new
coursework, new expectations, and a new learning environment can make for very dynamic changes
in perceptions of ability. Tschannen- Moran and Woolfolk Hoy (2001) suggest that supporting the
development of teachers' self-efficacy is essential for producing effective, committed and enthusiastic
teachers. These results confirm that pre-service teachers gain confidence over the transition from
clinical teaching where they get less teaching experience to the end of student teaching.

Previous research has provided evidence that pre-service teachers may benefit from
regular teaching opportunities in the k-12 setting rather than only at the end of their academic
program. Teacher attrition can actually begin during pre-service teaching opportunities,
especially if the student has few if any opportunities that increase teaching efficacy.

Building confident teachers, page 6

Journal of Case Studies in Education Volume 6 – September, 2014

The work of Pedergast, Garvis, & Keogh (2011) also confirms that further investigation
into pre-service teacher efficacy is warranted regarding the influences on sources of efficacy in
teacher preparation programs in order to prepare students across all competency areas. To this
end, this data will help in the process of meeting the standards in the accreditation process for
teacher education programs.

Several results can be used for program improvement. In order to help students build
areas of lower efficacy the following suggestions can be made:

 Prepare students to be able to teach with very little equipment and
technology

 Provide as many teaching experiences with k-12 students throughout their
program

 Educate students on the political and social networking environment of a
school setting

 Encourage students to seek a mentor if one is not provided
The participants also identified the important role of opportunities to observe a master
teacher. To this point, those who had this opportunity, drew confidence from those observations
whereas those who did not have a master teacher to observe during clinical or student teaching
described either no enhancement to their own efficacy or a slight uncertainty. Suggestions for
program improvement would include assisting students in teaching with little to no equipment
in order to better prepare them for the school settings where little equipment is available. This
reflects a unique challenge for the physical educator and one in which the student must practice
creativity and problem solving.
The results may not be generalized across other programs or universities. In addition, this
study was conducted in a suburban setting and should be reproduced within an urban setting to
help identify other sources, which may influence teacher development. There are several
individual sources that aligned with the work of Bandura (1986, 1997) such as the importance of
teachers gaining mastery experiences in order to enhance efficacy and the debilitating effect that
a lack of success can have on a pre-service teacher in terms of the efficacy needed to enter the
profession of teaching.

REFERENCES

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance, 50, 248-287.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York.

Darling-Hammond, L., Berry, B. T., Haselkorn, D., & Fideler, E. (1999). Teacher recruitment,
selection, and induction: Policy influences on the supply and quality of teachers.
Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice, 183-232.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2003). Keeping good teachers: Why it matters what leaders can do.
Educational Leadership, 60(8), 6-13.

Building confident teachers, page 7

Journal of Case Studies in Education Volume 6 – September, 2014

Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum to strengthen
and sustain teaching, Teachers College Record, 103(6), 2001, p. 1013-1055.

Griffey, C. & Housner, L. (1991). Differences between experienced and inexperienced teachers'
planning decisions, interactions, student engagement, and instructional climate. Research
Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 62(2), 196-204.

Hand, K. & Stuart, M. (2012). Early career physical education teacher efficacy. Journal of Case
Studies of Education, v4, 1-10.

Martin, J. J., & Kulinna, P. H. (2003). The development of a physical education teachers’
physical activity self-efficacy instrument. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education,
22(2), 219-232.

Moseley, C., Reinke, K., & Bookour, V. (2003). The effect of teaching outdoor environment
education on elementary pre-service teachers' self-efficacy. Journal of Elementary
Science, 15(1), 1-14.

NASPE (2008). Initial standards for physical education teachers. National Association of Sport
and Physical Education, American Alliance of Health, Physical Education, Recreation
and Dance, Renton, VA.

Onafowora, L. (2005). Teacher efficacy issues in the practice of novice teachers. Educational
Research Quarterly, 28(4) p34-43.

Pendergast, D., Garvis, S., Keogh, J. (2011). Pre-Service Student-Teacher Self-Efficacy Beliefs:
An Insight into the Making of Teachers. Australian Journal of Teacher Education,
36(12), 46-57.

Riggs, I & Enochs, L. (1990). Toward the development of an elementary teacher's science
teaching efficacy belief instrument. Science Education 74(6), 625-637.

Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Hoy, W.K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: its meaning
and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68, 202-248.

Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A.W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an
elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(7), 783-805.

Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2007). The differential antecedents of self-
efficacy beliefs of novice and experienced teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23,
944-956.

Building confident teachers, page 8

Journal of Case Studies in Education Volume 6 – September, 2014
Wenner, G. (2001). Science and mathematics efficacy beliefs held by practicing and prospective

teachers: a five-year perspective. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 10, 181-
187. Wheatley, K.F. (2002). The potential benefits of teacher efficacy doubts for
educational reform. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 5-22.
Woolfolk, A., Rosoff, B., & Hoy, W. (1990). Teachers' sense of efficacy and their beliefs about
managing students. Teaching and Teacher Education, 6(2), 137-148.
Woolfolk Hoy, A. & Burke-Spero, R. (2003). Changes in teachers' feelings of efficacy during the
early years of teaching: An exploratory study. Unpublished manuscript, Ohio State
University.
Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Burke-Spero, R. (2005). Changes in teacher efficacy during the early years
of teaching: A Comparison of four measures. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 343-
356.

Building confident teachers, page 9